Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only say non-read-only, destructive, non-idempotent, open-world; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing exactly what is copied (cards, columns, comments, sub-boards), what is NOT copied (read-only link, editors), where the copy lands (parent board's Unsorted panel), and its default visibility (private unless shared). It also pre-empts the destructive/quota implication by saying copied cards count against the free plan limit and that card_count reports the count, which reconciles the destructiveHint with an otherwise additive operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope before the caveats; almost every clause carries new information. The 'Does what Duplicate in a board's menu does' clause is slightly redundant with the opening sentence, which keeps it from a 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the return values (board_id, card_count). Combined with the copy-scope, placement, sharing, and quota details, an agent has everything needed to call this mutation correctly and predict its side effects.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by clarifying the effect of the parent_board_id default ('the copy lands in the parent board's Unsorted panel') and the visibility consequence, plus stating that board_id is returned. It doesn't extend the title parameter beyond the schema, so it sits above baseline rather than at the top.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Copy a board with everything on it, sub-boards included, as a template') and immediately anchors it to the UI equivalent ('Does what Duplicate in a board's menu does'). This clearly separates it from create_board (empty board), export_board (no new board), and get_board (read), so an agent can pick it without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The template framing plus the quota caveat 'Every copied card counts toward the free plan's card limit (get_usage)' gives clear when-to-use context and routes to a helper tool for a prerequisite check. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives (export_board vs. create_board) or stating when not to duplicate, so it's strong but not a full when/when-not guide.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.